Ex Parte Hochsmann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2011

10559920 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

Ex parte RAINER HOCHSMANN
______________

Appeal 2009-014444
Application 10/559,920
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicant appeals to the Board from the decision of the Primary
Examiner finally rejecting claims 20-37 in the Office Action mailed
September 19, 2007. In the Brief, Appellant states that “[c]laims 20-34 are
. . . not under appeal.” Br. 6. The Examiner canceled claims 20-34 in the
Communication mailed December 17, 2008. Thus, claims 35-37 remain for
consideration on appeal. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134(a) (2002); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.31(a) (2008).
We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Appeal 2009-014444
Application 10/559,920
2
Claim 35 illustrates Appellant’s invention of a procedure for layered
composition of a metal casting mould, and is representative of the claims on
appeal:
35. A procedure for layered composition of a metal casting mould,
comprising the steps of:
a) mixing solid particles of a bonding agent comprising a salt-crystal
or a salt-crystal and protein combination, with a sand that comprise quartz
sand, zircon sand, olivine sand, fireclay sand or a combination thereof, to
form a bonding agent/sand admixture;
b) applying a thin layer of the bonding agent/sand admixture to an
assembly field of an assembly platform;
c) selectively applying an aqueous solvent via a droplet generator, in
a sufficient dose. [sic]
d) dissolving with the aqueous solvent the salt-crystal or salt-crystal
and protein combination, so that the salt-crystal or salt-crystal and protein
combination substantially encompasses the sand particles within a layer and
to underlying sand particles that may be present;
e) drying the aqueous solvent so that the bonding agent/sand
admixture bind together;
f) lowering the assembly platform;
g) repeating at least steps (a)-(e) for applying an additional layer until
the metal casting mould is complete;
h) casting a metal casting from the resulting metal casting mould;
i) coring the metal casting through the [sic] immersion in a water
bath;
j) dissolving the bonding agent/sand admixture in the water bath; and
k) recycling the sand from the water bath.
Appeal 2009-014444
Application 10/559,920
3
Appellant requests review of the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) advanced on appeal by the Examiner: claims 35-37 over Melling
(US 5,573,055) in view of Sachs (US 6036,777). Br. 10;1 Ans. 3.
Appellant argues the claims in the ground of rejection as a group. See
generally Br. Thus, we decide this appeal based on claim 35. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(vii) (2008).
Opinion
We are of the opinion Appellant’s arguments do not establish that the
evidence in the totality of the record weighs in favor of the nonobviousness
of the claimed procedure for layered composition of a metal casting mould
encompassed by claim 35. In this respect, we are in agreement with the
Examiner’s analysis of the evidence in the references and the legal
conclusions stated in the Answer, to which we add the following for
emphasis with respect to Appellant’s arguments.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether Appellant has established
that the Examiner erred in finding that Melling would have disclosed a salt-
crystal as a bonding agent. Appellant submits that Melling teaches a “glassy
binder material” bonding agent, and that “salt-crystals” do not work as a
bonding agent as shown by Melling Comparative Example 1, thus teaching
away from the claimed procedure encompassed by claim 35. Br., e.g., 11,
12-13, 16, 17, and 18, citing Melling col. 18, ll. 6-22.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Melling would have
disclosed “a binder including polyphosphate” which “may be derived from

1 We considered the Appeal Brief filed July 29, 2009, and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed December 12, 2008.
Appeal 2009-014444
Application 10/559,920
4
water soluble ‘salt-crystal’ (phosphate glass).” Ans. 3-4, citing Melling col.
2, ll. 56 et. seq.; see also Ans. 5-6, citing Melling col. 3, ll. 34-48, and col. 5,
ll. 14-42. The Examiner submits that Melling’s “‘glassy’ material is “‘water
dispersible’ (i.e. dissolvable, which is a property of a salt and NOT most
glasses, which have little or no solubility . . . .).” Ans. 5-6. The Examiner
thus finds that Melling’s “glassy” material “would be inclusive of the
appellant’s claimed ‘salt-crystal.’” Ans. 6.
We find that Melling would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in
the art that a binder to mix with sand to form a metal casting mould can
include, among other things, “polyphosphate chains” which can be “derived
from at least one water soluble phosphate” that “may be wholly or partially
dissolved into the water.” Melling col. 2, ll. 53-65. In this respect, Melling
discloses that a water soluble phosphate glass binder that provides
polyphosphate chains when dissolved in water includes “binary Na2O/P2O5
glass,” which are “commonly available phosphate glasses.” Melling col. 3,
ll. 34-60, and col. 5, ll. 14-49. We further find that in Melling’s process,
water can be applied to the mixture of binder and sand particles in the form
of a fine water spray after the mixture is blown into a mould box during the
forming step. Melling col. 4, ll. 14-42.
We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that
“sodium polyphosphate” has the formula “Nan+2PnO3n+1” and includes
“sodium polyphosphates for which the mole ratio of Na2O/P2O5 is between 1
and 2;” and that “phosphate glass” is “[a] type of glass containing
phosphorous pentoxide.” See, e.g., Hawley’s Condensed Chemical
Appeal 2009-014444
Application 10/559,920
5
Dictionary 1023 and 869 (14th ed., Richard J. Lewis, Sr., revisor, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001).
We find that Appellant discloses that the “bonding agent” can be,
among other things, “sodium polyphosphate.” Spec. 7:5-7.
We find that Melling Comparative Example 1 illustrates that
“crystalline sodium phosphate with an equivalent weight % composition as
the phosphate glass having the composition P2O5 70.2 wt %, Na2O 29.8 wt
%,” wherein the crystalline sodium phosphate did not work while “[a]n
equivalent treatment in the case of the equivalent phosphate glass would
have resulted in a core with good handling characteristics.” Melling col. 18,
ll. 6-22.
On this record, we cannot agree with Appellant’s position. As the
Examiner points out, one of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized
from Melling that the “phosphate glass,” used as the binder is water soluble
and provides polyphosphate chains when dissolved in water, can be “sodium
polyphosphate.” The Examiner’s position that Melling’s water-soluble
“phosphate glass” is encompassed by the claimed “salt-crystal”
encompassed by claim 35 is established by the disclosure in Appellant’s
Specification that the term “salt-crystal” encompasses “sodium
polyphosphate.” Thus, Melling’s Comparative Example 1 which illustrates
“sodium phosphate” does not “teach away” from the claimed sodium
polyphosphate salt-crystal as Appellant contends.
We note here that while we agree with Appellant that Melling does
not disclose a binder which is “a salt-crystal and protein combination” as
claimed in claim 35, this claim thus reads on both obvious and nonobvious
Appeal 2009-014444
Application 10/559,920
6
subject matter and therefore, claim 35 is too broad in the sense of § 103(a).
Br. 12 and 19. See, e.g., In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 826 (CCPA 1970).
Finally, Appellant’s contention that the Examiner erred because the
Examiner did not articulate a reason for the legal conclusion of obviousness
over the combined teachings of Melling and Sachs is not supported by
argument addressing the Examiner’s position. Ans. 4 and 7-8; Br. 12, 15-16,
and 18-19.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Melling and Sachs with Appellant’s countervailing
evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude, by a
preponderance of the evidence and weight of argument, that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 35-37 would have been obvious
as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

sld

DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC
29 W LAWRENCE ST
SUITE 210
PONTIAC MI 48342